In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India set aside a High Court order directing the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to register and investigate a case based on a statement recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.), 1973, during a bail application hearing. The apex court, in its judgment delivered on March 24, 2025, in Criminal Appeal No. of 2025 (arising out of Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 7422 of 2023), emphasized that such directions cannot be issued in the context of a bail plea unless exceptional circumstances are clearly established. The bench, comprising Justice K. Vinod Chandran and Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia, allowed the appeal filed by the State of Uttar Pradesh against Dr. Ritu Garg and others, represented by Senior Counsel Shri K.M. Nataraj for the appellant.
Background of the Case
The case originated from a bail application filed by Dr. Ritu Garg and others before the High Court of Uttar Pradesh. During the bail proceedings, the High Court, presided over by a Single Judge, took an unusual step. Based on a statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. from one Dr. Umakant, the court directed the CBI Director to register a case and conduct an investigation. The statement was presented to the Investigating Officer (IO) during the hearing, who admitted that the allegations therein were not verified with senior government officials. The High Court, while granting bail to the respondents, issued the impugned directive, prompting the State of Uttar Pradesh to challenge it before the Supreme Court.
The State had earlier sought a CBI inquiry into the matter on October 11, 2022, but the Government of India declined the request on April 13, 2023, citing feasibility issues. By the time the High Court issued its order, the state police investigation had made significant progress, and the State argued that transferring the probe to the CBI at this stage would demoralize its police force.
Important Legal Issues Involved
The Supreme Court identified two primary legal issues in this case:
- Jurisdiction in Bail Applications: Whether a court hearing a bail application under Section 439 of the Cr.P.C. has the authority to issue directions for a CBI investigation based on incidental statements or evidence presented during the proceedings.
- Threshold for CBI Investigation: Under what circumstances can a constitutional court (High Court under Article 226 or Supreme Court under Article 32) direct a CBI probe, especially without the consent of the State Government, and whether such a direction was justified in this case.
The State, represented by Shri K.M. Nataraj, relied on prior Supreme Court decisions, including State of West Bengal v. Committee for Protection of Democratic Rights (2010), State v. M. Murugesan (2020), Seemant Kumar Singh v. Mahesh PS (2023), and Union of India v. Man Singh Verma (2025), to argue that courts have consistently disapproved of overstepping jurisdictional limits in bail matters and that CBI probes should only be ordered in exceptional situations.
The respondents’ counsel, appearing for Dr. Ritu Garg and others, did not contest the State’s arguments on these legal points.
Supreme Court’s Decision and Observations
The Supreme Court, in its judgment penned by Justice K. Vinod Chandran, allowed the appeal and set aside the High Court’s direction to the CBI, while leaving the bail order intact. The court made several critical observations:
- Limits of Bail Jurisdiction: Relying on precedents like M. Murugesan and Man Singh Verma, the court reiterated that a bail application’s jurisdiction ends with granting or refusing bail. It stated, “The jurisdiction in a bail application ends, when a bail application is finally decided… Therein, after taking decision on bail application, the High Court had retained the file and directed the State to form a Committee… which was held to be improper, finding no such jurisdiction under Section 439 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973.”
- No Exceptional Circumstances: The court found that the High Court’s directive lacked justification. It observed, “We are afraid that no exceptional or extraordinary circumstance has been brought out from the Section 161 Cr.P.C. statement or a statement made by the Investigating Officer… without verifying the records.” The bench emphasized that the mere presence of an unverified statement did not warrant transferring the investigation to the CBI.
- CBI Probe as an Extraordinary Measure: Citing State of West Bengal, the court acknowledged that constitutional courts can direct CBI investigations to protect fundamental rights under Article 21, even without state consent. However, it cautioned, “This extraordinary power has to be exercised sparingly, cautiously and in exceptional situations where it becomes necessary to provide credibility and instil confidence in investigations or where the incident may have national and international ramifications.”
- Adherence to Precedents: The court underscored its commitment to judicial discipline, stating, “We are also bound by the precedents which unequivocally hold that there can be no such direction issued in a bail application.”
The bench clarified that it refrained from delving into the facts of the underlying investigation to avoid influencing the ongoing state police probe, especially since the State did not challenge the bail granted to the respondents.
